46 Stanford Social Innovation Review • Spring 2010
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Power</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>The</strong>ories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Change</strong> <strong>By</strong> <strong>Paul</strong> <strong>Brest</strong> Illustration by Andrew Baker Improving the lives <strong>of</strong> disadvantaged populations—whether through better schools, after-school programs, or teen pregnancy prevention clinics—requires proven theories <strong>of</strong> change. <strong>The</strong> very development <strong>of</strong> a field depends on their diffusion, replication, critique, and modification. Yet some organizations refuse to articulate a theory <strong>of</strong> change and some funders think it would be intrusive to demand that they do so. <strong>The</strong> interests <strong>of</strong> all concerned are served by a developmental approach to creating and evaluating theories <strong>of</strong> change. <strong>The</strong> fundamental tenets <strong>of</strong> strategic philanthropy are that funders and their grantees should have clear goals, strategies based on sound theories <strong>of</strong> change, and robust methods for assessing progress toward their goals. Although these ideas are gaining traction, some prominent philanthropic thinkers continue to express reservations about how they may affect the balance <strong>of</strong> power between funders and the organizations they support. For example, former Ford Foundation president Susan Berresford expresses concerns about “funder-led strategic planning that imposes wearying and unnecessary demands on applicants and grantees,” and wistfully asks, “Has the role <strong>of</strong> the quiet, patient, and responsive funder become less appealing?” 1 She quotes the Indian social entrepreneur Sheela Patel’s complaint about funders’ imposition <strong>of</strong> logic models and their demand “that in a period <strong>of</strong> two years, we can implement perfect strategies and produce complete solutions.” Similarly, Sean Stannard-Stockton, the founder and CEO <strong>of</strong> Tactical Philanthropy Advisors and philanthropic blogger, argues that the idea <strong>of</strong> a theory <strong>of</strong> change makes sense in a “static landscape, where you can learn more and more about what works and what doesn’t and finally craft the perfect theory,” but “fails in a dynamic landscape, such as social change, where what you learned on your last trip might not apply this time.” He asserts that funders should focus on building great organizations rather than on honing theories <strong>of</strong> change. 2 Social change is inevitably complex and dynamic, and funders should be patient and forbear from micromanaging their grantees. But a funder has a legitimate interest in knowing whether an organization is on the path to success and, at some point, whether it is actually achieving impact. Indeed, it is the funder’s confidence in an organization’s theory <strong>of</strong> change, as well as in its leadership and management, that justifies patience in asking for pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> impact. I believe that the issues raised by Berresford, Patel, Stannard-Stockton, and others are best addressed through a developmental approach Spring 2010 • Stanford Social Innovation Review 47
Change language